Kudos to the Admins - Page 2

[quote]Originally posted by The Installer:
<strong>How do you do that?

- T.I.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> this feature has been changed.... <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> any reason Jon? sorry about getting your hopes up..

I for one think the admins have been over zealous, as one poster put it. Granted, threads that attack another member, become pornographic, blatantly advertise warez or are simply in the wrong forum should be locked. But, I have seen them lock threads that "have gone to far" or are very slightly off topic.....just because someone posts a thread with "PowerMac" in the title at this time of year (before MW) doesn't mean it should be locked. That is exactly what is happening now.

scott_h_phd's last thread on Islam may be controversial, but it shouldn't have been locked. That's just censorship, plain and simple.

I for one think the number of locked threads is insane. Some go TWO PAGES, then get locked. That isn't right.

While I'm at it, there needs to be a system for one becoming a moderator. It shouldn't just be a little club who decides "based on the reasonability of the poster" whether someone gets in. There should be criteria. Right now, its just an exclusivity thing. One shouldn't be ridiculed for asking to become one; its a reasonable question.

I find the attitude of the mods a little annoying to be honest. I have been here for two years and I am still talked to like a subordinate by certain ones.

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>

While I'm at it, there needs to be a system for one becoming a moderator. It shouldn't just be a little club who decides "based on the reasonability of the poster" whether someone gets in. There should be criteria. Right now, its just an exclusivity thing. One shouldn't be ridiculed for asking to become one; its a reasonable question.

I find the attitude of the mods a little annoying to be honest. I have been here for two years and I am still talked to like a subordinate by certain ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Generally in Savants societies there is mod to control the debate in scientifical reunions. Mods are designed by the staff and are not elected by the members of the society (but the staff is). There is rarely written rules in order to become a mod, it's rather a cooptation.
The quality of mods are humans quality, thus subjective. What objective criteria you can bring to become a mod : nationality, job, age ?
Is being a mod is a reward, do you think that mod are above us, more important ?, or don't you think that everypoeple here on AI are able to appreciate the quality of everyone ?.

Every decisions, of the staff is not perfect , because human, but they are doing a great job especially the admins who spent for free many hours of their times in order to let us discuss here. They are open to criticism and discussion, but we must remember the job that they do for us on AI.

Have a good day.
:cool:

SDW2001:

You're not along. Certain Mods are almost dictators. I run another BB system and have my Mod's assigned per room. Also my criterea for being a mod are simple. Must post 3 times a day, must show consistent interest for more then a week. Must maintain good form when using their MODLY powers. (NOTE NOT GODLY POWERS). In other words.....

Perhaps AI could take a look at how many "Gurus" there are up here and how many fans they have here. I post just about every morning from 9 am until 1 PM. Then I'm usually back on at 6 pm - 8 PM. That's hours and hours of reading and posting. (not that I want to be a mod or anything...)

Just some thoughts...

I just wish mods would make up their minds and stick to it.

They say stay in one topic/thread instead of starting new threads on similar topics. Okay fine. We do that and when the thread gets incredbily long and meanders all over the place they end up shutting down THAT thread too.

What the hell? Which is it? Yes we use a lot of bandwith/storage but hey this is a fanatical following right before an Expo where the lid will blow off the pot like never before if we don't get Time Travel G6's with optical processors and holographic memory.

If you cant get enough funding from rich Uncle MacNN find some alternate host/method to support such a heavy site or let it go.

Has anyone spawned spin-off boards? I mean a real AI spin-off, not just some luser board that his parents bought for him so he'd have virtual friends after being kicked off the mainstream sites?

There's a web host that offers a web board the SAME TYPE as AI for like $40~ setup (if you already have a domain, which is another $15-ish).

For a singlular purpose board to talk about a narrow range it shouldn't get too heavy.

I know some of the AI members are not exactly cash-strapped due to their prolific porn web site designing (you know who you are).

C'mon ppl, you are not locked into a Mac message board monopoly here! I'd do it if I hadn't bought OS X Dev Tools CD and a Beer Mug and other misc. items last week wiping out a lot of my fun money.

FIGHT THE POWER!

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I for one think the admins have been over zealous, as one poster put it. Granted, threads that attack another member, become pornographic, blatantly advertise warez or are simply in the wrong forum should be locked. But, I have seen them lock threads that "have gone to far" or are very slightly off topic.....just because someone posts a thread with "PowerMac" in the title at this time of year (before MW) doesn't mean it should be locked. That is exactly what is happening now. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll bite.

Every thread that has PowerMac in the title isn't being locked. We're simply trying to keep it to a minimum of threads on a single topic. When we have 14 different threads talking about the PowerMac in general, it becomes confusing, with a lot of cross-linking back and forth, and it makes the forum a mess. If we didn't use UBB, this wouldn't be such a problem- threads can be merged with vBulletin. However, in the near future, we're stuck with UBB, and such is life. Another limitation (which we are seeking to fix) is the fact that moved threads have a locked icon next to them just like a locked thread: it is our new policy to go back and edit the title of the moved thread in the original forum to "Moved: ---subject---". Hopefully this will help

[quote]<strong>
scott_h_phd's last thread on Islam may be controversial, but it shouldn't have been locked. That's just censorship, plain and simple. </strong><hr></blockquote>

What scott did there was clearly to piss me off. If you notice, AO was flooded with religious threads from the same 4 posters yesterday: we decided to consolidate. If you note the title of the thread, the time of posting, it was clearly trying to draw us into locking it, and making it look as if we were censoring. Congratulations, you fell for it. Read the thread- it's fluff. It had been explicitly stated at the top of the forum that all new discussion of religion should go into the religion thread - period. 30 pasted articles and broad stroke statements (which had already been discussed to DEATH) can go into one place. I even considered making a new forum for Religious discussion, but it's not in the cards right now. I'll be happy to continue discussion of the Scott situation with you via email.

[quote]<strong>
I for one think the number of locked threads is insane. Some go TWO PAGES, then get locked. That isn't right. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Please explain why the length of the thread matters. I agree that there have been more locked threads of late- chalk it up to the arrival of a new moderator (who has been overzealous in some occasions) and the relatively low signal:noise ratio of the forums of late.

[quote]<strong>
While I'm at it, there needs to be a system for one becoming a moderator. It shouldn't just be a little club who decides "based on the reasonability of the poster" whether someone gets in. There should be criteria. Right now, its just an exclusivity thing. One shouldn't be ridiculed for asking to become one; its a reasonable question. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Again, explain this. AI has never been a democracy. A large majority of the forums on the internet aren't. The only person that has asked publicly to become a moderator (in my memory) was some newbie with 45 posts who wanted the job because it would perhaps bump his status to 'Member' from 'Junior Member'. Moderation is a merit-based job. There is a system to becoming a moderator- we have solicited for mods in the past, to see who's interested in the job, and then the rest of the mods and the admins debate the candidates' virtues etc. It's not just me saying that, oh, I like him, he's my new mod. Frankly, the last discussion produced several valid candidates... more than we had need for, or spaces for. UBB allows for 4 moderators per forum. Given that we have the same mods across all forums, it becomes difficult to bring in lots of new people, or have 'elections' frequently when you have 4 people already- that's why you haven't seen new calls for interest.

If there's anything else I can answer for you, please, don't hesistate to ask. I apologise if I am the mod you speak of that has been condescending to you- rest assured it was not my intention.

[quote]Originally posted by Paul:
<strong>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> this feature has been changed.... <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> any reason Jon? sorry about getting your hopes up.. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You know, I swear that the Control Panel has amnesia sometimes. Half the changes we make seem to not stick.

In any event, it's back on now- all we ask is that, if you use this feature, to please note the change in your signature for a while so as to prevent confusion.

I remember when you did it, psantora, and I was like, who the hell is Paul?

[quote]Originally posted by Jonathan Brisby:
<strong>SDW2001:

You're not along. Certain Mods are almost dictators. I run another BB system and have my Mod's assigned per room. Also my criterea for being a mod are simple. Must post 3 times a day, must show consistent interest for more then a week. Must maintain good form when using their MODLY powers. (NOTE NOT GODLY POWERS). In other words.....

Perhaps AI could take a look at how many "Gurus" there are up here and how many fans they have here. I post just about every morning from 9 am until 1 PM. Then I'm usually back on at 6 pm - 8 PM. That's hours and hours of reading and posting. (not that I want to be a mod or anything...)

Just some thoughts...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I understand your sentiments. I, for one, would love a way to have more moderators, especially forum-specific ones. I am thinking that we might want to have a hack installed that lets us have 'global moderators' and then forum-specific moderators- i'll look into it. I know it may seem that currently, some of the mods don't seem to post much- this is definitely due to some extenuating circumstances that are quite understandable- one's in the hospital for 6-8 weeks, for instance... but I get what you're saying, and it's an issue that has been in my mind for a while as well.

[quote]Originally posted by Nitride:
<strong>I just wish mods would make up their minds and stick to it.

They say stay in one topic/thread instead of starting new threads on similar topics. Okay fine. We do that and when the thread gets incredbily long and meanders all over the place they end up shutting down THAT thread too.</strong><hr></blockquote>

We try to say to stay in one topic, on topic. The only long thread that I have seen locked recently was Dorsal's - it had become pretty bad, if you read the whole thing. Dorsal was speaking about PowerMac specs, it turned into an ideological debate, discussion of iMacs, and other things. What we lock threads about is simple: 1. is it topical? If so, 2. Is it redundant? 3. If it is topical and non-redundant, is it wandering or turning into crap?

Of course, stuff that isn't funny or is just plain stupid gets locked too, as well as trolls and warez posts.

[quote]<strong>
If you cant get enough funding from rich Uncle MacNN find some alternate host/method to support such a heavy site or let it go.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This really isn't the problem. Heaviness of the site or threads is not even thought about, unless it's pushing 30+ pages with images, then it gets to be a bit of a burden.

[quote]<strong>
Has anyone spawned spin-off boards? I mean a real AI spin-off, not just some luser board that his parents bought for him so he'd have virtual friends after being kicked off the mainstream sites?</strong><hr></blockquote>

well, I'd say that <a href="http://www.spymac.com/forums" target="_blank">SpyMac</a> and <a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/board" target="_blank">ThinkSecret</a> have pretty much taken the idea of a Mac rumor discussion board from us, wouldn't you say? Frankly, if you don't like AI, theres not as much need to start a new board as there is to find another one. I'm sorry if you don't like us, but you do have choices.

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: Jonathan ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Nitride:
<strong>
I know some of the AI members are not exactly cash-strapped due to their prolific porn web site designing (you know who you are).
</strong><hr></blockquote>

:eek: But I would like to know too

I would just like to state that the thread I created about Islam was to be a reasonable discussion where I called for no flames or personal attacks and it was locked and now appears to have gone missing altogehter? Deleted. Why? Curiouser and Curiouser.

Jonathon writes:

[quote] Please explain why the length of the thread matters. <hr></blockquote>

Because it shows that the thread has some life and people have invested time posting in it. Two pages is 50-100 posts. Once it gets to that point, it takes on a life of its own.

[quote]Again, explain this. AI has never been a democracy. A large majority of the forums on the internet aren't. The only person that has asked publicly to become a moderator (in my memory) was some newbie with 45 posts who wanted the job because it would perhaps bump his status to 'Member' from 'Junior Member'. Moderation is a merit-based job. There is a system to becoming a moderator- we have solicited for mods in the past, to see who's interested in the job..... <hr></blockquote>

The system should be transparent. It doesn't have to be a democracy. One should have to meet certain criteria. And example would be:

1) 500+ posts total (or whatever number you choose)
2) Membership for 6 months miminum
3) Email interview....list qualifications, etc.


Just an example/possibility. There should also be guidelines for things like locking threads such as mods being required to provide an explanation for locking or moving (it seems to be only a courtesy now), guidelines on when to lock, etc. Now, it is quite vague to a newbie (what will get their thread locked).

I am also going to take issue with the message that was posted a few months ago (more recently perhaps) telling poeple to "watch the tone" of the boards because they had become quite negative. Unless there are rampant, unprovoked personal attacks, the "tone" is none of your business.

[quote]It's not just me saying that, oh, I like him, he's my new mod. <hr></blockquote>

That's exactly what it is. Exactly. Except that you all do it together.

Oh, BTW! Hey, John! I didn't want you to think I was implying you in my little bit above. I think you do a swell job as Admin and would definatly say do post plenty, and post well. I think most of the comments were aimed at the Moderators. I can definately understand that they have other circumstances and I hope whomever was in the hospital gets better. Maybe I could send them an iCard? Keep up the good work guys.

SDW:

if the system were 'transparent' as you state it, there would be a good number of good candidates left out.

Sometimes the best people for the job don't necessarily meet arbitrary requirements. Note Gorgonzola's rapid ascension to power on MacNN- he became the sole mod of the most trafficked forum over there within 3 months of signing up, and then was admin in another 2 months. Now he practically runs the network.

The system you suggest is actually remarkably similar to what happens. It's just not so concrete. What we look for: levelheadedness, no enemies in the forum, being a noted presence in most forums, etc. It's not post count or registration date- it's who wants the job, and then who, out of those candidates, we think would do the best job. We ask for a short statement about your idealogy and your reasons for wanting to moderate when we solicit applications for new moderators. I don't see our system changing in the foreseeable future just because a few people think that it's somehow elitist: it's not. anyone can apply, and the decision is based upon merit as demonstrated in the forums. What more would you like?

You want guidelines for locking/moving of threads? I'll have them written and posted within an hour.. We had been operating on the basis that most people in the forum understood that there were unwritten guidelines on what belongs where, and what's dumb or redundant.

Explanations for moving are not necessary. It's quite obvious on most occasions when things are in the wrong place. I understand that you had a thread moved the other day that shouldn't have been. Once again, new moderator, he's very into his job, he made a mistake. 99% of moves are no-brainers. I don't think any explanation is needed in those cases- it's pretty plain in the fact that it was moved. Thread moved because it belongs in a different forum? How banal do you want it?

Explanations for locks, on the other hand, are a good thing. I am personally the most remiss in this department- but I will do my best to make sure that EVERY thread that is locked will be explained somehow, even if it's just a 'this isn't funny' or 'this is redundant'.

The message you refer to about tone was, in fact, referring to the overwhelming number of personal attacks that were going on during those days. It wasn't that people were negative or anything, it was that everyone was snippy and was yelling at each other for no reason. We don't try to control the feelings of our posters or the mood of the boards, but when people start sniping at each other for NO reason, and attacking moderators about their personalities, things need to change.

In short, your ideas about what goes on are quite misinformed. Frankly, we'll be having a new moderator position opening up shortly, and we will be accepting applications. Pending the approval of the rest of the mods/admins, i'd be happy to let you observe what goes on, since it seems to be the source of most of your discontent.

ps: my name is spelled Jonathan.

ok, i'll bite.

1. i don't understand why anything short of porn is banned in appleoutsider. it's appleoutsider for pete's sake. it's supposed to be full of crap and flame war topics. that's what it's there for. you got a problem with something in life, go post it there and watch the rabid dogs descend. that's how it's always worked in the past, and it did a fairly good job of relieving some of that snippyness you're talking about in the other forums. let everyone get it out of their systems in appleoutsider, away from the mac centered forums.

2. the locking of off-topic threads is a good thing, i'm glad they're moved. it's a good idea to see things where they belong. only problem with this is when things are moved to the Genius bar. seems the area is usually pretty dead. a post that would get 20 replies in a day in General Discussion, software or hardware picks up 5 or 6 tops in the Genius bar. guess that's just a matter of time, people will have to get used to going there.

3. the other locks, while perhaps a bit extensive are normal for a break-in period, i don't really care that much about it.

i guess i'm just wondering what all the fuss is about. dunno, had more to say but realized it don't really matter, and dinner is ready.

knock yourselves out.

at least madtool isn't around anymore.

(or is he?) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by alcimedes:
<strong>ok, i'll bite.

1. i don't understand why anything short of porn is banned in appleoutsider. it's appleoutsider for pete's sake. it's supposed to be full of crap and flame war topics. that's what it's there for. you got a problem with something in life, go post it there and watch the rabid dogs descend. that's how it's always worked in the past, and it did a fairly good job of relieving some of that snippyness you're talking about in the other forums. let everyone get it out of their systems in appleoutsider, away from the mac centered forums.
(snip)

at least madtool isn't around anymore.

(or is he?) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think anything is banned in AO, except redundancy, that's all that the religion consolidation was about.

i don't know about señor MaDtOoL.. but rest assured that I won't let it get out of hand.

So does this mean that porn is OK?

Anyway, onto the 'Kudos' part of this thread, or, as it were, back to it -- Fine work lads (and lass, though I've not seen Ms Belle around much lately)

God knows I'm the first to jump down anybody's throat when I have a complaint, so let me be equally forth-coming with the praise:

I like the way these fora have been moderated. Stuff works, there's just the right touch of stupidity (which I haply contribute when I can), topics certainly don't get redundant (thank-you Jamie). Reasoned responses for techno-neophytes, thank you Amorph. Prompt e-replies ( Jonathan -- who also deserves credit for the best Mod post I've read in a long time: he uses macs for the chicks! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> )

This board is rapidly acquiring everything a good board needs: Religious zealots, secular-democratic zealots, comissars of the left and the right, bleeding hearts, heartless bastards, a few sharp cookies, a few dim bulbs. It's really only missing SAR (RST?) and a few of Macintosh's erstwhile personalities doing dissociative battle with each other.

Good Work!

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

<strong>The system should be transparent. It doesn't have to be a democracy. One should have to meet certain criteria. And example would be:

1) 500+ posts total (or whatever number you choose)
2) Membership for 6 months miminum
3) Email interview....list qualifications, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ironically, I remember that one point in favor of gEEk (remember him?) was that he had a relatively low post count (under 200), but a very high rate of quality. He was an excellent mod; low-key, well-spoken, knowledgeable and level-headed.

Qualifications? Why? Your posting history makes a great resume, and we do go looking. After you've been at this for a while, you get a feel for who else might be good at it. It's an intuitive thing.

Minimum length of membership means much less than the regularity and quality of contributions.

Really, it takes a certain personality to do the job well. One of the reasons I tend to look askance at people who apply unsolicited is that the most reliable and efficient check against moderator abuse is a certain degree of caution and humility, and anything that looks like ambition raises a red flag with me. You don't give a sword to someone who wants to use it.

[quote]<strong>things like locking threads such as mods being required to provide an explanation for locking or moving (it seems to be only a courtesy now), guidelines on when to lock, etc. Now, it is quite vague to a newbie (what will get their thread locked).</strong><hr></blockquote>

We have gotten a little too comfortable with taking it for granted that the reasons are obvious. I used to be better at this; I'll renew my old vigilance.

[quote]<strong>I am also going to take issue with the message that was posted a few months ago (more recently perhaps) telling poeple to "watch the tone" of the boards because they had become quite negative. Unless there are rampant, unprovoked personal attacks, the "tone" is none of your business.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I posted that because "the tone" consisted of rampant, unprovoked personal attacks. If I objected to negativity in general I'd have been locking 9 out of 10 threads in Future Hardware for the past year!

Thanks for the feedback. I hope this clarified a few things.

[ 07-09-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[quote]a few dim bulbs<hr></blockquote>

No board needs those. There are so many of them out there, though, it's difficult to avoid them.

Jon and Amorph: Thank you for responding to my concerns, but:

[quote]In short, your ideas about what goes on are quite misinformed <hr></blockquote>

That's exactly the kind of statement I am talking about.

On the tone of the boards, if the issue was personal attacks than post a message regarding personal attacks, NOT negativity. Address the PROBLEM.

On the "qualifications" front, making someone a mod based on the fact he/she has no enemies? What? A mod should be able to seperate his mod duties and his posting opinions. That shouldn't be a consideration unless someone is widely hated.

[quote] Really, it takes a certain personality to do the job well. One of the reasons I tend to look askance at people who apply unsolicited is that the most reliable and efficient check against moderator abuse is a certain degree of caution and humility, and anything that looks like ambition raises a red flag with me. You don't give a sword to someone who wants to use it. <hr></blockquote>

That's bullshit. Various personalities perform well.
What is REALLY happening is that "like people" are being made mods. They often have similiar idealogies (or it at least appears that way). Meanwhile, people who have been here for years (and I'll exclude myself so there is no misunderstanding here) who have shown a vested ineterest in the boards never become mods. Usually, because they have different opinions or styles.

As far as long term membership and number of posts, I think those are quite relevant. It shows long term interest. It also increases the likelihood that the person understands the operation of the forum better.

lol, i'd have to agree with the "people who want to be shouldn't be" statement where mods are concerned.

i admin a CS server, and i can tell you right now i would never, in a hundred years think of giving admin rights to the people who are always asking. they go on a power trip within hours and start slaying, slapping and banning people left and right.

then i spend a week cleaning up their mess.

you give admin rights to those who are level headed, logical and mature. to those who have a good understanding of the topic(s), and someone who actually will give a rat's ass about what happens.

although i do find it funny when one or two mods are posting in a thread and another comes along and locks it. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
That's bullshit. Various personalities perform well.

What is REALLY happening is that "like people" are being made mods. They often have similiar idealogies (or it at least appears that way). Meanwhile, people who have been here for years (and I'll exclude myself so there is no misunderstanding here) who have shown a vested ineterest in the boards never become mods. Usually, because they have different opinions or styles.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, no.

It's easy to imagine that we have similar ideologies because most of us don't wear them on our sleeves (I certainly try not to). But I'm positive that, over the course of my career as a moderator, there have been mods and admins over the full spectrum of political ideology (because that is not relevant to the task), and moderators who approached their roles differently. There are some things that I feel are constant, however: You have to have a degree of humility that is a check against the additional power you wield; on the other hand, you have to firm when need be. You have to have a particularly thick skin. You have to be able to set your own beliefs aside - or at least keep them in perspective - when you put your moderator hat on. It helps if you can speak with some authority on the subject, because people rightly or wrongly take the words of Moderators more seriously. That allows for a great deal of latitude in terms of what personalities can be moderators. Frankly, I don't know most of the moderators that well, so I can't say that their full-fledged personalities matter all that much.

If you can cite, or if you come across, an example where a moderator closed a thread or similarly acted on political or ideological reasons, please don't hesitate to point it out. That's not supposed to happen.

[quote]<strong>As far as long term membership and number of posts, I think those are quite relevant.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They're not irrelevant. However, there are qualities that I feel are more important, and my experience bears that out (gEEk).

I won't dispute that we have probably overlooked people who would make perfectly good moderators. There haven't been that many moderators, historically, and there are a lot of good people on this board. The nomination process is neither exhaustive nor scientific. However, as long as the result is a team of capable moderators I don't see a problem.

[ 07-11-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

[quote]In any event, it's back on now- all we ask is that, if you use this feature, to please note the change in your signature for a while so as to prevent confusion.

I remember when you did it, psantora, and I was like, who the hell is Paul?

<hr></blockquote>

I'd like to change my name but it does not let me. Any way that I can do this?

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>

I'd like to change my name but it does not let me. Any way that I can do this?</strong><hr></blockquote>

This facility seems to be turned off at the moment. I remember Jonathan saying it was a bug in UBB which keeps reverting the settings.

Amorph/Jonathan, you know better than me!

J :cool:

I've had problems with UBB Control Panel settings not sticking, so that's probably it.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

I take it that you will be turning the feature back on soon?

[quote]Originally posted by Fran441:
<strong>I take it that you will be turning the feature back on soon?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Don't change your name, Fran!

I agree with EmAn. Your name is one of the most constant things here. Don´t let the sexual confusion rule you

1. Fran can't change his name. I put that 'gender' field into the profile JUST FOR HIM.

Executive order.

[quote]1. Fran can't change his name. I put that 'gender' field into the profile JUST FOR HIM.<hr></blockquote>

I guess I should be flattered?